Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

From: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines
Date: 2017-04-06 14:38:48
Message-ID: CAPpHfdttE3Cu8GZkVTK6pDH6bcYT9kejtLpjgkof9=k1ZtAQLw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-04-03 11:56:13 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Have you done x86 benchmarking?
>>
>> I think unless such benchmarking is done in the next 24h we need to move
>> this patch to the next CF...
>>
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> I didn't x86 benchmarking. I even didn't manage to reproduce previous
> results on Power8.
> Presumably, it's because previous benchmarks were done on bare metal,
> while now I have to some kind of virtual machine on IBM E880 where I can't
> reproduce any win of Power8 LWLock optimization. But probably there is
> another reason.
> Thus, I'm moving this patch to the next CF.
>

I see it's already moved. OK!

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-04-06 14:44:51 Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2017-04-06 14:37:25 Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines